Jehovah's Witneses

[Pegg]

It is, therefore, inhospitable, because it assumes that "everyone must look, act, and think as I do."

isnt that what Jesus wanted us to do...to imitate him means that we must look, act and think as he does.

there is no room for different opinions in christinity...we must do it Jesus way, and his way is the only way.

 

[savagewind]

isnt that what Jesus wanted us to do...to imitate him means that we must look, act and think as he does.

there is no room for different opinions in christinity...we must do it Jesus way, and his way is the only way.

I'm stymied

 

[Iti oj]

i have thought about this and in some ways i want to change my answer

 

[Pegg]

i have thought about this and in some ways i want to change my answer

i noticed you chose the 'holidays' option....what would you change it to now and why?

 

[Iti oj]

i noticed you chose the 'holidays' option....what would you change it to now and why?

Well I had put holidays because I like and enjoy holidays. They have value to me. However I respect and understand why holidays are not celebrated by Jehovah's Witnesses. In many ways I think it adds an extra level of legitimacy to the faith. Especially considering to roots of many of these holidays.

Since joining RF I have learned a lot about your faith from you and others in this DIR, i have overcome many false understandings and have developed a high level of respect for the faith and its adherents. That being said I do have some issues with the religion and its adherents. These issues are not a JW thing but issues I would have across the board with religion and its adherents. Social conservatism, bible literalism, and the rejection of scientific advances particular the evolution vs creationism debate. Of course this is an generalization and a huge range can be shown to exist with in the faith.

one thing in particular and i am unsure if this just an extreme side of the faith is the rejection of medical advances. Such as not allowing a dying child to get a blood transfusion. I do not know enough to speculate why this is or how directly it is related to your faith.

 

[Pegg]

Well I had put holidays because I like and enjoy holidays. They have value to me. However I respect and understand why holidays are not celebrated by Jehovah's Witnesses. In many ways I think it adds an extra level of legitimacy to the faith. Especially considering to roots of many of these holidays.

I look at the holiday issue in 3 different ways.
1. I ask if Jesus celebrated such things, and if not, then i dont view it as important to make a custom of it so it now needs further consideration and a conscience decision which leads to me my next two considerations.

2. I ask who established the holiday and for what reason. The roots of some holidays are of religious origins, other origins are simply cultural. I need to determine if I want to be involved in such things and if it will add anything meaningful to my life or worship of my God.

3. I also need to consider the principle laid out by Jesus that we need to keep separate from the world. If I choose to make a custom of the worlds celebrations, then just how separate from the world am I keeping? This is a serious consideration for me because how i apply this principle is in my hands... i want to make sure im keeping separate.

These issues are not a JW thing but issues I would have across the board with religion and its adherents. Social conservatism, bible literalism, and the rejection of scientific advances particular the evolution vs creationism debate. Of course this is an generalization and a huge range can be shown to exist with in the faith.

really these all boil down to 'balance'
Conservatism is about keeping on a middle road...not going to extremes. Bible literalism means the bible is truly from God, it is written for our benefit, its stories are based on truth and fact. Believing that the bible is a guidebook for life adds weight to it, it is not based in myth but on real events that happen to include Gods intervention which adds a supernatural element to it. But for anyone who believes in God, supernatural events are not impossible....the entire universe came into existence by a supernatural event.
And the evolution and Creation debate is not an issue for me because science does not give us any clue as to how life actually got started. It shows how life evolved and developed after it started, while the bible tells us how life got started in the first place. The details between the two are minor and they do not discount each other out.

one thing in particular and i am unsure if this just an extreme side of the faith is the rejection of medical advances. Such as not allowing a dying child to get a blood transfusion. I do not know enough to speculate why this is or how directly it is related to your faith.

Well i would recommend that you read this brochure which explains in detail why we refuse blood transfusion. From my perspective, there are plenty of medical interventions that I would not want to give to myself or my kids....medical therapies abound in many forms and they are not all good for you. Im sure you wouldnt just accept any old remedy because a doctor said to take it. YOu know, it wasnt so long ago that people were sucking on radioactive throat drops! Would you give one of those to your kids? Maybe 50 years ago you might have because the effects were unknown, but today you would be crazy to take it.
Its no different with blood therapies. There are different forms of it, we accept some but reject others. We reject whole blood transfusions but will accept other transfusions. But we reject blood on the basis of the bible law against using blood or taking blood into your body.

 

[sojourner]

isnt that what Jesus wanted us to do...to imitate him means that we must look, act and think as he does.

there is no room for different opinions in christinity...we must do it Jesus way, and his way is the only way.

Point proven. Thank you.

Yet, he authorized Paul to teach. Paul taught that it's OK for Gentiles to be Gentiles and Jews to be Jews. Kind of contradicts what you're saying here.

 

[Pegg]

Point proven. Thank you.

Yet, he authorized Paul to teach. Paul taught that it's OK for Gentiles to be Gentiles and Jews to be Jews. Kind of contradicts what you're saying here.

as followers of Christ, both jews and greeks had to adhere to the righteous standards and morals that Christ displayed.
"Become imitators of me" means just that.... they were to follow Jesus course of life and his conduct. Jesus conduct was fully in harmony with Gods laws and requirements which is why he we call him a 'perfect' man.

Paul wasnt telling anyone that they could do whatever they wanted, he wasnt telling gentiles to live as they had always lived.....he told them to "become imitators of me just as I am of the Christ"

Paul lived an exemplary life in imitation of Jesus and if the gentile believers were having a hard time trying to figure out how to imitate Jesus, a man they had never personally met or experienced, they needed only to view Pauls course of conduct because he led by example.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Well i would recommend that you read this brochure which explains in detail why we refuse blood transfusion. From my perspective, there are plenty of medical interventions that I would not want to give to myself or my kids....medical therapies abound in many forms and they are not all good for you. Im sure you wouldnt just accept any old remedy because a doctor said to take it. YOu know, it wasnt so long ago that people were sucking on radioactive throat drops! Would you give one of those to your kids? Maybe 50 years ago you might have because the effects were unknown, but today you would be crazy to take it.
Its no different with blood therapies. There are different forms of it, we accept some but reject others. We reject whole blood transfusions but will accept other transfusions. But we reject blood on the basis of the bible law against using blood or taking blood into your body.

Okay, so I read the brochure. Obviously, I'm not going to agree in terms of it being required by God. But just in relation to the pamphlet, it puts forth the scriptual case, and then at the end says something to the effect of 'some medical evidence suggests blood may help in some circumstances, so it is up to you to determine...'

I'm trying to figure out whether blood transfusion is a bad thing from a JW point of view, or not. That seems to say 'Well, the bible argues against it, but it's up to you.' Is that a fair summation?

 

[Pegg]

Okay, so I read the brochure. Obviously, I'm not going to agree in terms of it being required by God. But just in relation to the pamphlet, it puts forth the scriptual case, and then at the end says something to the effect of 'some medical evidence suggests blood may help in some circumstances, so it is up to you to determine...'

I'm trying to figure out whether blood transfusion is a bad thing from a JW point of view, or not. That seems to say 'Well, the bible argues against it, but it's up to you.' Is that a fair summation?

basically, we must reject 'whole blood' transfusion. That is in harmony with the scriptural requirement to 'abstain from blood'. So whole blood tranfusions are out 100%.

However, there are different types of transfusion fluids available. Some are made from various elements found in blood, but do not contain 'whole blood'.... these various forms of fluids are for the individual to decide and the WT stance is that it is a 'conscience' matter, yes. We all carry 'Blood Cards' which is a medical directive were we have personally outline the different types of procedures and products we WILL accept. But our blood card states that we WONT accept 'whole blood' transfusions as a matter of our religious views. Other types of transfusions are a personal conscience decision.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

basically, we must reject 'whole blood' transfusion. That is in harmony with the scriptural requirement to 'abstain from blood'. So whole blood tranfusions are out 100%.

However, there are different types of transfusion fluids available. Some are made from various elements found in blood, but do not contain 'whole blood'.... these various forms of fluids are for the individual to decide and the WT stance is that it is a 'conscience' matter, yes. We all carry 'Blood Cards' which is a medical directive were we have personally outline the different types of procedures and products we WILL accept. But our blood card states that we WONT accept 'whole blood' transfusions as a matter of our religious views. Other types of transfusions are a personal conscience decision.

It's outside my ability to understand, most likely, but why the distinction between 'whole blood' and what I am assuming are blood products (eg, plasma) and the like.

Isn't that splitting hairs? Kinda like following the letter of the law and not the spirit?

Don't get me wrong, I'd be the last person to advocate denying any sort of blood transfusions, but I'm interested in the JW viewpoint, since I've never had much understanding of it.

 

[savagewind]

It's outside my ability to understand, most likely, but why the distinction between 'whole blood' and what I am assuming are blood products (eg, plasma) and the like.

Isn't that splitting hairs? Kinda like following the letter of the law and not the spirit?

Don't get me wrong, I'd be the last person to advocate denying any sort of blood transfusions, but I'm interested in the JW viewpoint, since I've never had much understanding of it.

There is compelling evidence for them that to believe blood is sinful would be calling their god a sinner because fetuses are allowed their mother's blood. The Creator is The One who designed human growth the way it works. The way it works is the fetus shares the mother's blood, but not all of it. It's technical. I can't explain it. They allow only what the fetus is allowed.

 

[Pegg]

It's outside my ability to understand, most likely, but why the distinction between 'whole blood' and what I am assuming are blood products (eg, plasma) and the like.

Isn't that splitting hairs? Kinda like following the letter of the law and not the spirit?

Don't get me wrong, I'd be the last person to advocate denying any sort of blood transfusions, but I'm interested in the JW viewpoint, since I've never had much understanding of it.

whole blood is blood in its natural form....the very thing that the bible strictly forbids.

But doctors can separate the blood into fractions to create something new. Some people's conscience may not view processed forms of blood products as 'blood' and for that reason their conscience may allow them to use it.

Contrary to popular opinion, the WT does not dictate how we decide on these matters. The brothers leave it up to us to make personal decisions such as this.

For example, here is a snipet from the 2008 publication "Keep Yourself in Gods Love" regarding the use of Blood Fractions:
Blood fractions.
Fractions are derived from the four primary blood components—red cells, white cells, platelets, and plasma. For example, red cells contain the protein hemoglobin. Products developed from human or animal hemoglobin have been used to treat patients who have acute anemia or massive blood loss.
Plasma—which is 90 percent water—carries scores of hormones, inorganic salts, enzymes, and nutrients, including minerals and sugar. Plasma also carries clotting factors, antibodies to fight disease, and such proteins as albumin. If someone is exposed to a certain disease, doctors might prescribe injections of gamma globulin extracted from the plasma of people who already had immunity. White blood cells may be a source of interferons and interleukins, used to treat some viral infections and cancers.
Should Christians accept therapies incorporating blood fractions? The Bible does not give specific details, so each one must make his own conscientious decision before God. Some would refuse all fractions, reasoning that God’s Law to Israel required that blood removed from a creature be “[poured] out upon the ground.” (Deuteronomy 12:22-24) Others, while refusing transfusions of whole blood or its major components, might accept treatments involving a fraction. They may reason that at some point fractions that have been extracted from blood cease to represent the life of the creature from which the blood was taken.

How we individually reason on this and what we choose to do is a conscience matter...that means that what I 'feel is right' is what I should do, and if someone feels it is wrong, then they need to refrain from doing what i would do.
We have to live by reason of our own conscience and not the consciences of others.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

whole blood is blood in its natural form....the very thing that the bible strictly forbids.

But doctors can separate the blood into fractions to create something new. Some people's conscience may not view processed forms of blood products as 'blood' and for that reason their conscience may allow them to use it.

Contrary to popular opinion, the WT does not dictate how we decide on these matters. The brothers leave it up to us to make personal decisions such as this.

For example, here is a snipet from the 2008 publication "Keep Yourself in Gods Love" regarding the use of Blood Fractions:
Blood fractions.
Fractions are derived from the four primary blood components—red cells, white cells, platelets, and plasma. For example, red cells contain the protein hemoglobin. Products developed from human or animal hemoglobin have been used to treat patients who have acute anemia or massive blood loss.
Plasma—which is 90 percent water—carries scores of hormones, inorganic salts, enzymes, and nutrients, including minerals and sugar. Plasma also carries clotting factors, antibodies to fight disease, and such proteins as albumin. If someone is exposed to a certain disease, doctors might prescribe injections of gamma globulin extracted from the plasma of people who already had immunity. White blood cells may be a source of interferons and interleukins, used to treat some viral infections and cancers.
Should Christians accept therapies incorporating blood fractions? The Bible does not give specific details, so each one must make his own conscientious decision before God. Some would refuse all fractions, reasoning that God’s Law to Israel required that blood removed from a creature be “[poured] out upon the ground.” (Deuteronomy 12:22-24) Others, while refusing transfusions of whole blood or its major components, might accept treatments involving a fraction. They may reason that at some point fractions that have been extracted from blood cease to represent the life of the creature from which the blood was taken.

How we individually reason on this and what we choose to do is a conscience matter...that means that what I 'feel is right' is what I should do, and if someone feels it is wrong, then they need to refrain from doing what i would do.
We have to live by reason of our own conscience and not the consciences of others.

That's great...thanks for taking the time to answer my questions.

 

[savagewind]

That's great...thanks for taking the time to answer my questions.

I think I did not make up the fetus thing. I remember that is how they reason it.

 

[Pegg]

I think I did not make up the fetus thing. I remember that is how they reason it.

i've never heard anything about fetus's and blood...i've been a JW for 20 years

I really dont think that is how the blood issue is reasoned out tbh.

 

[Pegg]

That's great...thanks for taking the time to answer my questions.

Your welcome, anytime.

 

[savagewind]

i've never heard anything about fetus's and blood...i've been a JW for 20 years

I really dont think that is how the blood issue is reasoned out tbh.

"Do Jehovah's Witnesses accept injections of a blood fraction, such as immune globulin or albumin? Some do....some substances from the plasma cross into the fetus' circulation. Do plasma proteins, such as immune globulin and albumin? Yes, some do."—The Watchtower, June 1, 1990, p. 30-31? (View PDF of these Pages)

http://4jehovah.org/jehovahs-witness-blood-transfusion.php

I do not know that from this website. I remember reading it. I remember everything.

 

[sojourner]

as followers of Christ, both jews and greeks had to adhere to the righteous standards and morals that Christ displayed.
"Become imitators of me" means just that.... they were to follow Jesus course of life and his conduct. Jesus conduct was fully in harmony with Gods laws and requirements which is why he we call him a 'perfect' man.

Paul wasnt telling anyone that they could do whatever they wanted, he wasnt telling gentiles to live as they had always lived.....he told them to "become imitators of me just as I am of the Christ"

Paul lived an exemplary life in imitation of Jesus and if the gentile believers were having a hard time trying to figure out how to imitate Jesus, a man they had never personally met or experienced, they needed only to view Pauls course of conduct because he led by example.

Yet, he didn't tell the Gentiles to become Jews. He didn't tell them that they had to follow Mosaic Law. Jesus was, in point of fact, an observant Jew with standing; he was a Rabbi. By your logic, Paul should have insisted that (in imitation of Christ) all become observant Jews. But "imitation" means "to love God and love neighbor as Jesus did" -- not to become clones without differences. Unity of spirit does =/= uniformity of thought.

 

[sojourner]

There is compelling evidence for them that to believe blood is sinful would be calling their god a sinner because fetuses are allowed their mother's blood. The Creator is The One who designed human growth the way it works. The way it works is the fetus shares the mother's blood, but not all of it. It's technical. I can't explain it. They allow only what the fetus is allowed.

I think the problem here is that, biblically, "consumption of blood" means to not eat or drink it. It's the same sort of religious dietary restriction that forbids the consumption of pork or shellfish. It has nothing whatsoever to do with blood transfusion, since such medical procedures would have been unknown to the biblical writers. Unless I'm mistaken, JWs do not abstain from pork or shellfish.

This is the sort of fuzzy thinking that lack of reputable exegesis produces, which is reason #2 why I disagree with JW doctrine.